Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock People


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Tim Song (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Undeleted and redirected per request on my talk page. There is a fairly strong consensus that there should not be a standalone article here, and any attempt to revert the redirect will result in immediate protection. Tim Song (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rock People

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is no reliable third person sources and lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way.  Policies are all that matters.  Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it.  All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously.  Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like.   D r e a m Focus  07:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:IAR means -- Boing!   said Zebedee  13:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. No references, no independent secondary sources. I bet that these paragraphs could be merged into a related article, but I don't know enough about the field to determine where it should be merged. Racepacket (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unreferenced and apparently unreferencible. --Bejnar (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Masters of the Universe or keep if references found. Okip  15:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Standard fictional biography that just needs to be referenced to the comics and the DVD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those aren't secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  C T J F 8 3  chat 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete and add relevant content to Masters of the Universe. RadManCF (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 *   — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 00:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Suitable combination article. The primary sources available are good enough for this--and there is no policy that articles about parts of a fiction cannot be as much devoted to plot as necessary--it's only our total coverage which should not be only plot.    DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is typical of arguments mad by  DGG that the article WP:INHERITED value the article itself doesn't have any reliable third person sources to assert its notability. The guidelines clearly state

Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research.

Oh and by the way the primary source used for this article is dead. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Once again, there is no doubt on the accuracy of the material presented.  If someone made a statement that might be false, then you'd have to have a reliable source to verify the claim.  There is nothing in there that might be false.  Read the policy more carefully please.  Don't just skim through it and take things out of context.  Every fictional article has a plot summary taken from the primary source, there never any reason to get information from elsewhere for that.  Use WP:COMMON SENSE.   D r e a m Focus  04:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And you are another one Dream Focus you like to argue WP:ITEXISTS so therefore it should be kept. Whether the subject exists or not is beside the point. Does sufficient and reliable third person information to support the article notability hence why I nominated. Wikipedia clearly and consistently states an article has reliable third person information and before you go into another of your favourite arguments Ignore all rules. Maybe you should read the rules too.

''A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus.'' If the majority decide to keep it so be it but no has yet provided reliable third person evidence to support that the characters are notable to prevent deletion or merger.Dwanyewest (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- a sourceless article about minor cartoon characters. Reliable sources are required, and this hasn't got any. It's nothing but original research. Reyk  YO!  09:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * RSs for plot are the work itself--in fact, the preferred source.   DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. Where did you pull that from? The preferred sources are always secondary ones. Some independent sources are necessary, per policy. And, as I argued here, it is often difficult to tell where summary of a primary source ends and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH begins; another reason why secondary sources are to be preferred to primary ones- because all the interpretation of the primary source has already been done. Primary sources can help establish our verifiability requirements but cannot satisfy our notability requirements, and are dangerous OR magnets. Reyk  YO!  04:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and continue to improve as unoriginal research that meets a common sense standard of notability. No reason exists per WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE as to why at worst we would not merge and/or redirect with edit history intact as we can verify through reliable sources that the "Rock People" appeared not only on a TV show, but also as toys and even as the sub-titular cover subject of a publication, i.e. not a minor aspect of a mainstream fictional universe that spanned multiple media and has relevance to the millions of TV, toy, and comic fans of the franchise.  As we have a redirect location at worst per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to redlink that which is neither a hoax nor libelous and that has a place to redirect to.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * -A Nobody as usual you seem to ignore not all subjects are of equal notability.

''As is mentioned in one of the official Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community; if the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community that's good evidence that the subject is not important enough to warrant inclusion in a general encyclopedia.'' Dwanyewest (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now as I just mentioned in a previous post does this article have reliable third person sources which discuss this subject to justify this article, does it even have primary sources to justify no and google whacking images to show it exists doesn't make it more notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not "all" subjects are of equal notability; however, characters that are verifiable and that appear on the cover of publications, as toys, in a mainstream well-known cartoon, etc. are at worst redirectable to a character list. No valid reason exists whatsoever for having to protect the public from the edit history of this article, i.e. no admin action is needed and no reasonable editor would call for any.  When a redirect location exists and nothing in the article's edit history is legally damaging, we discuss a merge or redirect on the article's talk page per all of our policies and guidelines, particularly WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE.  Masking WP:IDONTLIKEIT with abbreiviations and irrelevant block quotations doesn't cut it.  We can discriminately agree that a redirect location exists and that these are notable by the common sense standard for at worst a redirect with edit history intact.  You totally lose us by saying primary sources do not even justify it when we can visually see them on the cover and in titular manner for a published work...  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not pass WP:V, let alone WP:N. Argumentation above cannot change this, and is indicative of a topic that richly deserves deletion. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remember to make honest posts in AFDs or to focus on discussions for which you have some background knowledge or at least willingness to check for sources. Because you can type, I assume you are not blind.  As such, anyone with eyes, can indeed verify that the Rock People are part of a notable franchise (anyone with any even cursory knowledge of toys and cartoons would know that) in which they appear as toys and on the cover of a published book beyond just the TV show, ergo no legitimate reasons exists for not keeping the content, even if under a redirect, in some capacity as a valid merge and redirect location unquestionably exists per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and even WP:SENSE.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My posts are honest. The topic is so thinly sourced that I could not be sure that the name was correct. It is my hope that the closing admin will see your and DGG's arguments as overreaching and anti-policy, and delete the article accordingly. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Any admin who follows WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:V, WP:N, etc. will close as keep, no consensus, or merge and redirect at worst as no compelling reason/need exists for redlinking. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.